ORDER : Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 27.5.2017, whereby application moved by the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 Petitioner had been discharged by the trial court with regard to the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in a similar FIR as two FIRs were registered against the petitioner. The said order was upheld by this court in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 754/03 (decided on 13.4.2015). The said order passed by the trial court in discharging the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 Cr.P.C., 1973 in similar FIR has not been taken into consideration by the investigating agency. Hence, it was very necessary in the interest of justice that the investigating agency be directed to further investigate the matter. Petitioner had sought production of some documents from the prosecution. Prosecution had placed on record some of the documents but the same had also not been duly investigated by the investigating agency. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 reads as under :- "(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." 5. Thus, as per the above provision, in a given case the Magistrate can ask the investigating agency to further investigate the matter. 6. In the present case FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2000. Challan was presented against the petitioner on 28.4.2007. Till date charges have not been framed against the petitioner. Thus, as per the above provision, in a given case the Magistrate can ask the investigating agency to further investigate the matter. 6. In the present case FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2000. Challan was presented against the petitioner on 28.4.2007. Till date charges have not been framed against the petitioner. Application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 in the year 2017 seeking direction to the investigating agency to further investigate matter. 7. It has been held by the Apex Court in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. 2017 Cr.L.R. (SC) 219, as under :- "47. On an overall survey of the pronouncements of this Court on the scope and purport of Section 173(8) of the Code and the consistent trend of explication thereof, we are thus disposed to hold that though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such power is available therefore to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither the learned Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand. 48. The un-amended and the amended sub-Section (8) of Section 173 of the Code if read in juxtaposition, would overwhelmingly attest that by the latter, the investigating agency/officer alone has been authorised to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. This power qua the investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifesting heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. " 8. This power qua the investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifesting heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. " 8. Thus, in view of the above decision, the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 as the magistrate had no power to order for further investigation on an application moved by the petitioner. No interference is called for by this court.